Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1077800

In reply to Re: please be civil » Bill82, posted by Dr. Bob on March 22, 2015, at 9:16:02

> > You make no sense> > > I think you need your haldol upped> > Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Be sensitive to the feelings of others; everyone's here, after, for support. How would you feel if someone said you made no sense, or needed your Haldol upped?>

Dr. Hsiung, I can appreciate, as no doubt all members can appreciate, the general merits of the admonition you deliver above. I feel compelled, nonetheless, to register some degree of misgiving at the way you have chosen to express the admonition, and the general standard of your reasoning.

First, I am baffled by the assumption, implicit in your first point, that a statement to the effect that no reasonable sense can be gleaned from a comment to which a response has been requested or impliedly invited, *necessarily* evidences a "lack of respect". The application of reason in the articulation of one's views determines in the first place whether they merit reasonable consideration by any one. No one can be obliged reasonably to consider *views* which are unreasonable in themselves. But even notionally reasonable views may not merit "respect" if they be, for instance, morally outrageous. It is, for instance, quite reasonable to argue for the mass sterilisation of the mentally ill; i.e., arguments based in reason can be (and have been) adduced in support of this proposition. Famous philosophers argue for the permissibility of killing disabled children if the disability by which they are affected renders the children incapable of any degree of autonomy.

Are these views to be "respected"? Or perhaps you mean more accurately to state that they, however wicked, should be *tolerated* as part and parcel of entering into the bargain of rational discourse and debate? If the later, I agree to an extent, subject to the proviso that no view is immune from vigorous criticism if reasonably warranted. Arbitrarily, by the imposition of a faux "respect" or otherwise, to quarantine opinions from critical response reflects a patronising condescension and *lack of respect* for the agency of the person who choses to express the opinion, as if that person cannot exercise the capacity for common reason which is the natural possession of all persons.

Further, you should appreciate that "respect" is a loaded term importing, in substance and in contrast to "tolerance", some degree of endorsement of the views advanced. It is, in my view, entirely illegitimate to enforce *in advance* an obligation on members to endorse, to any degree, any and every view that may be articulated on this site. Then again, perhaps what you really mean to state is that members should in advance "respect", not the view itself, but the *right* to express the view, even if disagreeable. If this is your intended meaning, you should of course say so. It is easy enough to do. If you persist, even after conceding this point, in asserting that "respect" is still obliged to be extended to any and every view, you should then consider yourself under the rational obligation to justify why respect for a *right* of expression necessarily entails "respect" for the *content* of the expression which is communicated in exercise of such right.

The supposition that every member is here for "support" is, of course, a prima facie plausible one. But it does not by logical necessity exclude the possibility that the "support" any one hypothetical member might seek is conditional on him or her outrageously misrepresenting, denigrating, defaming, and bullying other members in the pursuit of his or her aims. If this is not a logically excludable possibility, then it behoves you to reflect on precisely what constitutes "support" and what its limits may in any particular case be.

The complication which supervenes on the above observations is, of course, not difficult to anticipate. It relates to the nature of this site and the members who seek to become, and are, participants in it. Emphasising "reasonableness" when there is a possibility, given these facts, that any hypothetical member or interlocutor may be very ill or vulnerable and therefore not always responsive to reason is unintelligent. The general assumption should be displaced in such a case. But in such a case, what is called for is not necessarily "respect" but *compassion*. I would also suggest, however, that even such does *not* morally obligate members to *accept* and *tolerate* misrepresentation, denigration, bullying, etc. Much less should it oblige members to "respect" such behaviour.

The only way in which anyone should be obliged to accept, tolerate, or "respect" such behaviour and irrationality is if the obligations you impose on us as a condition of membership include those which might be described as supererogatory. But this site is not a facility for the production of Saints, though I would not be surprised to learn in time that there are some among us here.

If your admonition was really aimed at nothing more exceptional than encouraging members to express their views, when in disagreement, with a sufficient degree of "sensitivity" in the circumstances, then no one would disagree. But it should not be underestimated how difficult it can be to summon up such "sensitivity" in the face of a battering succession of insensitive, repetitive, and irrational comments. In my sincere view, your omission to take this fact into account as a mitigating factor betrays a lack of judgement.

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Robert-dehumanize-stigmatize-discrm, posted by Lamdage22 on March 21, 2015, at 17:20:47

> For goodnessès sake..> > How much time do you invest on "fighting the good fight" here on babble??

L_22, The amount of time will end when all of the posts here that contain antisemitic statements and statements that defame me that are able to be seen as supportive and in Mr.Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole to be seen that way, are repudiated by Mr. Hsiung as against his own rules as to not post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down or to feel that one's faith is being put down/accused or the statement is not supportive or it is insensitive to the feeling's of the subject peoples. For as one match could start a forest fire, one small anti-Semitic statement seen as civil here could spread through the internet to homes all over the world and is considered to be supportive by a psychiatrist as being seen by a subset of readers as that he validates the hate by allowing the statement to stand, for he states that support takes precedence and if it is not civil to not post it, and members are to be civil at all times. That is a powerful influence to children that could act out anti-Semitic hate maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon: for the rest of their lives. This is not an ordinary owner/operator, but an owner/operator that sits right down on the boards as a teacher. And readers can learn here. And as long as those statements remain to be seen as ratified by the owner/operator here as not being notated against his rules, children could learn to hate. Lou

In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 22, 2015, at 11:16:56

> > > You make no sense> > > > > I think you need your haldol upped> > > > Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Be sensitive to the feelings of others; everyone's here, after, for support. How would you feel if someone said you made no sense, or needed your Haldol upped?> > > > Dr. Hsiung, I can appreciate, as no doubt all members can appreciate, the general merits of the admonition you deliver above. I feel compelled, nonetheless, to register some degree of misgiving at the way you have chosen to express the admonition, and the general standard of your reasoning.> > First, I am baffled by the assumption, implicit in your first point, that a statement to the effect that no reasonable sense can be gleaned from a comment to which a response has been requested or impliedly invited, *necessarily* evidences a "lack of respect". The application of reason in the articulation of one's views determines in the first place whether they merit reasonable consideration by any one. No one can be obliged reasonably to consider *views* which are unreasonable in themselves. But even notionally reasonable views may not merit "respect" if they be, for instance, morally outrageous. It is, for instance, quite reasonable to argue for the mass sterilisation of the mentally ill; i.e., arguments based in reason can be (and have been) adduced in support of this proposition. Famous philosophers argue for the permissibility of killing disabled children if the disability by which they are affected renders the children incapable of any degree of autonomy. > > Are these views to be "respected"? Or perhaps you mean more accurately to state that they, however wicked, should be *tolerated* as part and parcel of entering into the bargain of rational discourse and debate? If the later, I agree to an extent, subject to the proviso that no view is immune from vigorous criticism if reasonably warranted. Arbitrarily, by the imposition of a faux "respect" or otherwise, to quarantine opinions from critical response reflects a patronising condescension and *lack of respect* for the agency of the person who choses to express the opinion, as if that person cannot exercise the capacity for common reason which is the natural possession of all persons. > > Further, you should appreciate that "respect" is a loaded term importing, in substance and in contrast to "tolerance", some degree of endorsement of the views advanced. It is, in my view, entirely illegitimate to enforce *in advance* an obligation on members to endorse, to any degree, any and every view that may be articulated on this site. Then again, perhaps what you really mean to state is that members should in advance "respect", not the view itself, but the *right* to express the view, even if disagreeable. If this is your intended meaning, you should of course say so. It is easy enough to do. If you persist, even after conceding this point, in asserting that "respect" is still obliged to be extended to any and every view, you should then consider yourself under the rational obligation to justify why respect for a *right* of expression necessarily entails "respect" for the *content* of the expression which is communicated in exercise of such right.> > The supposition that every member is here for "support" is, of course, a prima facie plausible one. But it does not by logical necessity exclude the possibility that the "support" any one hypothetical member might seek is conditional on him or her outrageously misrepresenting, denigrating, defaming, and bullying other members in the pursuit of his or her aims. If this is not a logically excludable possibility, then it behoves you to reflect on precisely what constitutes "support" and what its limits may in any particular case be. > > The complication which supervenes on the above observations is, of course, not difficult to anticipate. It relates to the nature of this site and the members who seek to become, and are, participants in it. Emphasising "reasonableness" when there is a possibility, given these facts, that any hypothetical member or interlocutor may be very ill or vulnerable and therefore not always responsive to reason is unintelligent. The general assumption should be displaced in such a case. But in such a case, what is called for is not necessarily "respect" but *compassion*. I would also suggest, however, that even such does *not* morally obligate members to *accept* and *tolerate* misrepresentation, denigration, bullying, etc. Much less should it oblige members to "respect" such behaviour.> > The only way in which anyone should be obliged to accept, tolerate, or "respect" such behaviour and irrationality is if the obligations you impose on us as a condition of membership include those which might be described as supererogatory. But this site is not a facility for the production of Saints, though I would not be surprised to learn in time that there are some among us here. > > If your admonition was really aimed at nothing more exceptional than encouraging members to express their views, when in disagreement, with a sufficient degree of "sensitivity" in the circumstances, then no one would disagree. But it should not be underestimated how difficult it can be to summon up such "sensitivity" in the face of a battering succession of insensitive, repetitive, and irrational comments. In my sincere view, your omission to take this fact into account as a mitigating factor betrays a lack of judgement. > > Robert, You wrote,[...views which are unreasonable...if they be morally outrageous...outrageously misrepresenting, denigrating ,defaming and bullying...insensitive, repetitive and irrational comments...]. I could be your subject person here and what you have written about me could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. The subject of mine here is reasonable on the basis that I was responding to a poster's post. Since you have not specified what the "unreasonable views are", then readers could speculate and think that any or all of my views are unreasonable. And as to what you are wanting readers to think as to any "outrageously misrepresenting", I would like for you to post what you mean by that right now so that I could respond to whatever you write about me here and include what is denigrating, defaming, bullying, irrational, et al to you. Lou> > >

In reply to Lou's request-pheel UR » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2015, at 10:40:14

That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere.

In reply to Re: Lou's request-pheel UR, posted by Bill82 on March 24, 2015, at 10:27:53

> That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere.

Outstandingly effective post which is at the same time concise. Commendable,. Bill.

I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own.

Still, I have my concerns, and my health should not, as a consequence of remaining, be weakened.

But it is and continues to be.

Not infrequently, I receive email notifcations of follow-ups to threads in which I have conscientiously participated, in full knowledge of the limitations of my knowledge, with my very name in the subject-line of the notification and attended by some some menacing jibberish which appears to mistake itself as clever.

In the substance of such notifications, I am then accused of trying to kill vulnerable people, of advocating the drugging of children, of complicity with authoritarian psychiatry, and of contributing to a pervasive and entrenched "antisemetic" culture at this website.

In mu humble view, each imputation is utterly outrageous, totally without basis in fact, and intolerable, and would be libellous if it were possible that one's internet avatar (which is designed and used to conceal one's true identity) could be defamed.

Everytime I receive such a menacing notification or "warning" by email, in respect of threads the responses to which I eagerly, and reasonably, anticipate, my anxiety increases, my already highly-developed tendency to self-hating rumination intensifies, my depressive disposition kicks in, and I begin to wonder why on earth, as a very recent member, I put myself at the *risk* of participating in the conversations on this site.

This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance. Why jeopardise this status and reputation? If one is intent on being inflammatory, misinformed, and irrational, then - for the sake of the mental health of members of this site - it may well be advisable to post at other sites whose members are not as *clinically* vulnerable and desperate for accurate, experiential, advice and information on medications and treatment.

If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that the propsition that neuro-psychiatric disease be an invention of the powerful medical auhorities is conferred "respect". Such injunction mandate that the proposition that medication solutions to chronic suffering be always means of evading the "truth" about oneself be conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that Tom Cruise (for instance) be, in essence, a person whose opinion on psychiatry and medication should be conferred "respect".

And all the while suffering humanity is obliged by authoritarian edict to remain "respectful" of the views of those who have not the slightest comprehension of, nor concern for, nor interest in, the aetiology, biological dimensions, and phenomenological trajectory of their suffering.

Is this just?

All I can say is that if that's the condition for beloninging here, then I'd sooner disappear now.

In reply to Re: Lou's request-pheel UR » Bill82, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 24, 2015, at 11:38:19

> > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. > > Outstandingly effective post which is at the same time concise. Commendable,. Bill.> > I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own. > > Still, I have my concerns, and my health should not, as a consequence of remaining, be weakened.> > But it is and continues to be. > > Not infrequently, I receive email notifcations of follow-ups to threads in which I have conscientiously participated, in full knowledge of the limitations of my knowledge, with my very name in the subject-line of the notification and attended by some some menacing jibberish which appears to mistake itself as clever.> > In the substance of such notifications, I am then accused of trying to kill vulnerable people, of advocating the drugging of children, of complicity with authoritarian psychiatry, and of contributing to a pervasive and entrenched "antisemetic" culture at this website. > > In mu humble view, each imputation is utterly outrageous, totally without basis in fact, and intolerable, and would be libellous if it were possible that one's internet avatar (which is designed and used to conceal one's true identity) could be defamed.> > Everytime I receive such a menacing notification or "warning" by email, in respect of threads the responses to which I eagerly, and reasonably, anticipate, my anxiety increases, my already highly-developed tendency to self-hating rumination intensifies, my depressive disposition kicks in, and I begin to wonder why on earth, as a very recent member, I put myself at the *risk* of participating in the conversations on this site. > > This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance. Why jeopardise this status and reputation? If one is intent on being inflammatory, misinformed, and irrational, then - for the sake of the mental health of members of this site - it may well be advisable to post at other sites whose members are not as *clinically* vulnerable and desperate for accurate, experiential, advice and information on medications and treatment.> > If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that the propsition that neuro-psychiatric disease be an invention of the powerful medical auhorities is conferred "respect". Such injunction mandate that the proposition that medication solutions to chronic suffering be always means of evading the "truth" about oneself be conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that Tom Cruise (for instance) be, in essence, a person whose opinion on psychiatry and medication should be conferred "respect". > > And all the while suffering humanity is obliged by authoritarian edict to remain "respectful" of the views of those who have not the slightest comprehension of, nor concern for, nor interest in, the aetiology, biological dimensions, and phenomenological trajectory of their suffering. > > Is this just?> > All I can say is that if that's the condition for beloninging here, then I'd sooner disappear now.

Robert, You wrote that the opinion on psychiatry and medication as thought by Tom Cruise should be conferred 'respect". If you do not want to confer respect to Mr. Cruises opinions, which of the following would be acceptable to post here in your thinking:The opinions of Tom Cruise concerning psychiatry and medication:A. Are bullsh*tB. Are a earthen-ware container of defecationC. make no senseD. cause him to need to take HaldolE. all of the aboveF. none of the aboveG. A combination of the above which are ____H. something else which is _______________Lou

In reply to Re: Lou's request-pheel UR » Bill82, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 24, 2015, at 11:38:19

> > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. > > Outstandingly effective post which is at the same time concise. Commendable,. Bill.> > I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own. > > Still, I have my concerns, and my health should not, as a consequence of remaining, be weakened.> > But it is and continues to be. > > Not infrequently, I receive email notifcations of follow-ups to threads in which I have conscientiously participated, in full knowledge of the limitations of my knowledge, with my very name in the subject-line of the notification and attended by some some menacing jibberish which appears to mistake itself as clever.> > In the substance of such notifications, I am then accused of trying to kill vulnerable people, of advocating the drugging of children, of complicity with authoritarian psychiatry, and of contributing to a pervasive and entrenched "antisemetic" culture at this website. > > In mu humble view, each imputation is utterly outrageous, totally without basis in fact, and intolerable, and would be libellous if it were possible that one's internet avatar (which is designed and used to conceal one's true identity) could be defamed.> > Everytime I receive such a menacing notification or "warning" by email, in respect of threads the responses to which I eagerly, and reasonably, anticipate, my anxiety increases, my already highly-developed tendency to self-hating rumination intensifies, my depressive disposition kicks in, and I begin to wonder why on earth, as a very recent member, I put myself at the *risk* of participating in the conversations on this site. > > This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance. Why jeopardise this status and reputation? If one is intent on being inflammatory, misinformed, and irrational, then - for the sake of the mental health of members of this site - it may well be advisable to post at other sites whose members are not as *clinically* vulnerable and desperate for accurate, experiential, advice and information on medications and treatment.> > If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that the propsition that neuro-psychiatric disease be an invention of the powerful medical auhorities is conferred "respect". Such injunction mandate that the proposition that medication solutions to chronic suffering be always means of evading the "truth" about oneself be conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that Tom Cruise (for instance) be, in essence, a person whose opinion on psychiatry and medication should be conferred "respect". > > And all the while suffering humanity is obliged by authoritarian edict to remain "respectful" of the views of those who have not the slightest comprehension of, nor concern for, nor interest in, the aetiology, biological dimensions, and phenomenological trajectory of their suffering. > > Is this just?> > All I can say is that if that's the condition for beloninging here, then I'd sooner disappear now.

Robert, You wrote that you have been accused of contributing to an anti-Semitic culture here. What post has such in it that you are using to substantiate that claim?Lou

In reply to Lou's request-ehykrok » Robert_Burton_1621, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2015, at 16:58:40

> > > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. > > > > Outstandingly effective post which is at the same time concise. Commendable,. Bill.> > > > I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own. > > > > Still, I have my concerns, and my health should not, as a consequence of remaining, be weakened.> > > > But it is and continues to be. > > > > Not infrequently, I receive email notifcations of follow-ups to threads in which I have conscientiously participated, in full knowledge of the limitations of my knowledge, with my very name in the subject-line of the notification and attended by some some menacing jibberish which appears to mistake itself as clever.> > > > In the substance of such notifications, I am then accused of trying to kill vulnerable people, of advocating the drugging of children, of complicity with authoritarian psychiatry, and of contributing to a pervasive and entrenched "antisemetic" culture at this website. > > > > In mu humble view, each imputation is utterly outrageous, totally without basis in fact, and intolerable, and would be libellous if it were possible that one's internet avatar (which is designed and used to conceal one's true identity) could be defamed.> > > > Everytime I receive such a menacing notification or "warning" by email, in respect of threads the responses to which I eagerly, and reasonably, anticipate, my anxiety increases, my already highly-developed tendency to self-hating rumination intensifies, my depressive disposition kicks in, and I begin to wonder why on earth, as a very recent member, I put myself at the *risk* of participating in the conversations on this site. > > > > This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance. Why jeopardise this status and reputation? If one is intent on being inflammatory, misinformed, and irrational, then - for the sake of the mental health of members of this site - it may well be advisable to post at other sites whose members are not as *clinically* vulnerable and desperate for accurate, experiential, advice and information on medications and treatment.> > > > If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that the propsition that neuro-psychiatric disease be an invention of the powerful medical auhorities is conferred "respect". Such injunction mandate that the proposition that medication solutions to chronic suffering be always means of evading the "truth" about oneself be conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that Tom Cruise (for instance) be, in essence, a person whose opinion on psychiatry and medication should be conferred "respect". > > > > And all the while suffering humanity is obliged by authoritarian edict to remain "respectful" of the views of those who have not the slightest comprehension of, nor concern for, nor interest in, the aetiology, biological dimensions, and phenomenological trajectory of their suffering. > > > > Is this just?> > > > All I can say is that if that's the condition for beloninging here, then I'd sooner disappear now. > > Robert,> You wrote that the opinion on psychiatry and medication as thought by Tom Cruise should be conferred 'respect".> If you do not want to confer respect to Mr. Cruises opinions, which of the following would be acceptable to post here in your thinking:> The opinions of Tom Cruise concerning psychiatry and medication:> A. Are bullsh*t> B. Are a earthen-ware container of defecation> C. make no sense> D. cause him to need to take Haldol> E. all of the above> F. none of the above> G. A combination of the above which are ____> H. something else which is _______________> Lou

Robert Friends, I apologize and redact my request to Robert here concerning Tom Cruise. The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forumLou

In reply to Re: Lou's request-pheel UR » Bill82, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 24, 2015, at 22:12:53

> First, I am baffled by the assumption, implicit in your first point, that a statement to the effect that no reasonable sense can be gleaned from a comment to which a response has been requested or impliedly invited, *necessarily* evidences a "lack of respect". The application of reason in the articulation of one's views determines in the first place whether they merit reasonable consideration by any one. No one can be obliged reasonably to consider *views* which are unreasonable in themselves. > > Are these views to be "respected"? Or perhaps you mean more accurately to state that they, however wicked, should be *tolerated* as part and parcel of entering into the bargain of rational discourse and debate? If the later, I agree to an extent, subject to the proviso that no view is immune from vigorous criticism if reasonably warranted. > > Further, you should appreciate that "respect" is a loaded term importing, in substance and in contrast to "tolerance", some degree of endorsement of the views advanced. ... Then again, perhaps what you really mean to state is that members should in advance "respect", not the view itself, but the *right* to express the view, even if disagreeable. If this is your intended meaning, you should of course say so. > > The supposition that every member is here for "support" is, of course, a prima facie plausible one. But it does not by logical necessity exclude the possibility that the "support" any one hypothetical member might seek is conditional on him or her outrageously misrepresenting, denigrating, defaming, and bullying other members in the pursuit of his or her aims. > > If your admonition was really aimed at nothing more exceptional than encouraging members to express their views, when in disagreement, with a sufficient degree of "sensitivity" in the circumstances, then no one would disagree. But it should not be underestimated how difficult it can be to summon up such "sensitivity" in the face of a battering succession of insensitive, repetitive, and irrational comments.

> I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own. > > This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance. > > If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect". > > Robert_Burton_1621

Thanks for taking the time to explain where you're coming from.

1. How would you feel if someone said you didn't merit reasonable consideration, or were puerile?

2. You're of course free to decide that someone doesn't merit reasonable consideration. Or is puerile. Or ugly. But do you have to say that to them? I think Ed is great, too. Do you see him saying certain people don't merit reasonable consideration?

3. IMO, the reason that is the natural possession of all persons isn't really so common; reasonable people can disagree.

4. The goal here is support, not vigorous criticism. I believe vigorous criticism will be more tolerated if posted elsewhere.

I do suppose that everyone here is here for support. Say someone does post that mental illness is an illusory phenomenon. It's fine to post that you disagree, and why. It might be described as supererogatory, but you could at the same time also wonder what led them to post that, and how you might be able to support them (without compromising your own beliefs).

5. To try to be more clear, I mean "respect" as in "refrain from interfering with", as in "you must learn to respect other people's property", not "consider worthy of high regard", as in "the students respect the principal for his honesty." Maybe you'd call it respecting the right of others to express their views, or expressing one's own views with a sufficient degree of sensitivity. Have you read Dinah's post on I-statements?

I know how difficult that can be. Sometimes interacting with others may be frustrating and staying civil may be a challenge. New skills may help. Other posters can also support you in developing new skills (which I realize may not be why you came in the first place).

6. I see it as my role to deal with bullying, etc. And saying someone doesn't merit reasonable consideration, or is puerile, or ugly, could, depending on the circumstances, be considered bullying.

7. I'm delighted that you consider this the best site for peer-to-peer intelligent discussion about medication. I hope you continue to contribute to it.

--

> That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. >> Bill82

1. Please be civil. How would you feel if someone referred to your speech as non sensical unrelated?

2. His objective may not (or may) be interaction and support.

3. If you can't make sense of someone's posts, it might not be worth your while to keep reading them.

In reply to Re: Lou's apology and redaction » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 25, 2015, at 0:18:46

> Hi, Lou. > > > The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum> > What is the mission of this forum?> > > - Scott

Scott, You asked as to what the mission of this forum is. The mission of this forum could be deduced by different readers as to what their knowledge is concerning what can be seen here. I am prevented from posting what I see as the mission here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. Those prohibitions prevent me from showing the history and development of psychiatric drugs and the relationship of psychiatry and mass-murder and support. They also prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which if I was not prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post such, it would be plainly visible what the mission of this forum is from my perspective.Lou

In reply to Re: respect, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2015, at 1:25:49

> > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. > >> > Bill82> > 1. Please be civil. How would you feel if someone referred to your speech as non sensical unrelated?> > 2. His objective may not (or may) be interaction and support. > > 3. If you can't make sense of someone's posts, it might not be worth your while to keep reading them.> > Bob

Dr. Hsiung,

1. Bill82 did not refer to the content of any post as "non-sensical" or "unrelated" tout court. He stated that the relevant content was "seemingly" non-sensical or unrelated. In ordinary English, such a qualification implies that the writer openly accepts the possibility that the content *may not in fact be* nonsensical or unrelated.

2. There is signifiant ambiguity in any case as to whether the (qualified) attribution of nonsensicality was made with the intent directly to characterise the content of the relevant post or posts or whether it was made with the intent to express the *indirect* difficulties Bill82 has attested as having experienced in seeking to make sense of the relevant post or posts *given his lack of "mental stamina"* caused by his condition (for which he turns to this site for support). The first alternative characterises the comment as intending to apply primarily to the relevant post or posts; the second alternative applies primarily to Bill's *capacities* to construe the sense which is contained in the post or post.

Your chastisment conflates, or omits to identify the existence of, these alternatives, without any apparent justification.

3. You ask how Bill82 should "feel" if x. You pose the question seemingly as if it were a definitive retort. But nothing about the question necessitates a single answer, certainly not one inevitably favourable to the assumption on which it is based. This be so even to the extent that the question clearly appeals to "feeling" as if "feeling" were both universal and invariable across persons, in effect some form of universal criterion of moral approbation or reprobation (are you an emotivist?), *and* heuristically more relevant than (for instance) "reason" in determining whether there are any *grounds* personally to object to, or be dissatisfied by, or be justly critical of, the statement that one's stated views are x or y or z. I can only speak for myself when I say that, if someone asserts that my opinion is nonsensical, and if objectively in point of reason it *is* nonsensical, I will thank him or her for pointing that fact out to me. I will not "feel" unvalued, or (to use an Oprahesque term) unvalidated, or ignored, or unjustly treated, if someone tells me in charity that I am wrong.

2. There is sufficient evidence of civility and consideration in the post that it astonishes me that it could possibly be the cause of any need to urge on the poster an exhortation to be "civil". I was so taken aback by your exhortation that I thought, and think, that an apology is warranted.

3. Given that *one* objective you consider open is the seeking of interaction and support, there is nothing illict in Bill's comment to the extent that it assumes the existence of this one (if among other) objectives. Nothing in Bill's comment purports to cover exhaustively every purpose, or all purposes, by which his interlocutor may have been actuated.

4. It may not be "worth [Bob's] while" to read posts which he finds seemingly nonsensical or in which his condition militates against inferring a satisfactory sense. This is, I think, without disrespect, a rather unfeeling way of putting the dilemma, particularly after Bill's affecting post. What do you have to say in light of the possibilities that members may *wish* to participate by reading the posts that are made here? May *wish* to keep up to date with threads to which they have contributed? May *wish* to visit the site daily so as to keep up-to-date? May *wish* to read putatively nonsensical posts which fall (arbitrarily) within a particular thread on a different topic because they might contain something related to the thread or which subsequent posts then make reference to? And what, finally, of the fact that some posts are, because of their prevalence, very hard to ignore given the way the threads are presented?

5. Is your advice in all such cases as particularised above that members either not read or devise some absurd means of averting their attention? If so, do you concede that this advice is vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum? Namely, that members should *leave" the site altogether?

I am certainly considering doing so myself.

6. Please do feel assured that my attempt at a rational response to your reply to Bill82 is not intended to amount to "bullying". Please consider how you would feel if someone asserted that you were a "bully". Please also consider how you would feel if you were deliberately misprepresented as asserting that you stated that *someone*, i.e, a particular human being, does not merit consideration, when you in fact you had taken pains to state that certain *opinions* do not merit *reasonable* consideration if they be not based themselves in reason, even though they may merit *other* forms of consideration (e.g., compassionate attention). I have an instinct for fairness, and an aptitude for "questioning authority", even when I do not believe such authority is corrupted by an all-pervasive and programmatic anti-semitism. Please do not feel threatened by this. I can refer you to educational material on this point if you are interested and if you have the time to learn from it. It may assist you in expressing yourself more considerately and lucidly in the future. Please be civil and non-accusatory in any reply you may be minded to provide in public on the very site that you administer. Please remain mindful of the fact that *all* members of this site are vulnerable in various respects. Please try to respect opinions that are not congruent with your own. I know this is difficult - I can readily refer you to resources which might assist you in overcoming this difficulty.

In reply to Re: respect » Dr. Bob, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 27, 2015, at 9:47:27

> > > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. > > >> > > Bill82> > > > 1. Please be civil. How would you feel if someone referred to your speech as non sensical unrelated?> > > > 2. His objective may not (or may) be interaction and support. > > > > 3. If you can't make sense of someone's posts, it might not be worth your while to keep reading them.> > > > Bob> > Dr. Hsiung,> > 1. Bill82 did not refer to the content of any post as "non-sensical" or "unrelated" tout court. He stated that the relevant content was "seemingly" non-sensical or unrelated. In ordinary English, such a qualification implies that the writer openly accepts the possibility that the content *may not in fact be* nonsensical or unrelated. > > 2. There is signifiant ambiguity in any case as to whether the (qualified) attribution of nonsensicality was made with the intent directly to characterise the content of the relevant post or posts or whether it was made with the intent to express the *indirect* difficulties Bill82 has attested as having experienced in seeking to make sense of the relevant post or posts *given his lack of "mental stamina"* caused by his condition (for which he turns to this site for support). The first alternative characterises the comment as intending to apply primarily to the relevant post or posts; the second alternative applies primarily to Bill's *capacities* to construe the sense which is contained in the post or post. > > Your chastisment conflates, or omits to identify the existence of, these alternatives, without any apparent justification. > > 3. You ask how Bill82 should "feel" if x. You pose the question seemingly as if it were a definitive retort. But nothing about the question necessitates a single answer, certainly not one inevitably favourable to the assumption on which it is based. This be so even to the extent that the question clearly appeals to "feeling" as if "feeling" were both universal and invariable across persons, in effect some form of universal criterion of moral approbation or reprobation (are you an emotivist?), *and* heuristically more relevant than (for instance) "reason" in determining whether there are any *grounds* personally to object to, or be dissatisfied by, or be justly critical of, the statement that one's stated views are x or y or z. I can only speak for myself when I say that, if someone asserts that my opinion is nonsensical, and if objectively in point of reason it *is* nonsensical, I will thank him or her for pointing that fact out to me. I will not "feel" unvalued, or (to use an Oprahesque term) unvalidated, or ignored, or unjustly treated, if someone tells me in charity that I am wrong. > > 2. There is sufficient evidence of civility and consideration in the post that it astonishes me that it could possibly be the cause of any need to urge on the poster an exhortation to be "civil". I was so taken aback by your exhortation that I thought, and think, that an apology is warranted. > > 3. Given that *one* objective you consider open is the seeking of interaction and support, there is nothing illict in Bill's comment to the extent that it assumes the existence of this one (if among other) objectives. Nothing in Bill's comment purports to cover exhaustively every purpose, or all purposes, by which his interlocutor may have been actuated. > > 4. It may not be "worth [Bob's] while" to read posts which he finds seemingly nonsensical or in which his condition militates against inferring a satisfactory sense. This is, I think, without disrespect, a rather unfeeling way of putting the dilemma, particularly after Bill's affecting post. What do you have to say in light of the possibilities that members may *wish* to participate by reading the posts that are made here? May *wish* to keep up to date with threads to which they have contributed? May *wish* to visit the site daily so as to keep up-to-date? May *wish* to read putatively nonsensical posts which fall (arbitrarily) within a particular thread on a different topic because they might contain something related to the thread or which subsequent posts then make reference to? And what, finally, of the fact that some posts are, because of their prevalence, very hard to ignore given the way the threads are presented? > > 5. Is your advice in all such cases as particularised above that members either not read or devise some absurd means of averting their attention? If so, do you concede that this advice is vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum? Namely, that members should *leave" the site altogether? > > I am certainly considering doing so myself.> > 6. Please do feel assured that my attempt at a rational response to your reply to Bill82 is not intended to amount to "bullying". Please consider how you would feel if someone asserted that you were a "bully". Please also consider how you would feel if you were deliberately misprepresented as asserting that you stated that *someone*, i.e, a particular human being, does not merit consideration, when you in fact you had taken pains to state that certain *opinions* do not merit *reasonable* consideration if they be not based themselves in reason, even though they may merit *other* forms of consideration (e.g., compassionate attention). I have an instinct for fairness, and an aptitude for "questioning authority", even when I do not believe such authority is corrupted by an all-pervasive and programmatic anti-semitism. Please do not feel threatened by this. I can refer you to educational material on this point if you are interested and if you have the time to learn from it. It may assist you in expressing yourself more considerately and lucidly in the future. Please be civil and non-accusatory in any reply you may be minded to provide in public on the very site that you administer. Please remain mindful of the fact that *all* members of this site are vulnerable in various respects. Please try to respect opinions that are not congruent with your own. I know this is difficult - I can readily refer you to resources which might assist you in overcoming this difficulty. > > 7. We all of us can resort to the evasive tu quoque manouevre. > > Friends, Many of you already know the disadvantage that I am under here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. A lot of those prohibitions involve keeping me from posting my own repudiation to anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen here as supportive and worse, that it being allowed to be seen that way here, it will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole. This is so even though he admits that harm could come to me by the nature that readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are validating the hate in the unsanctioned anti-Semitic propaganda here. But the harm could come to all Jews since the anti-Semitic propaganda in question being allowed to be seen as supportive here is defaming all Jews, not just me here as Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he can leave unsupportive statements un intervened because in his thinking that will be good for this community as a whole to do so. It is in his thinking that he allows hatred toward the Jews to be posted here with impunity. Think upon that if you are wondering about what Robert wrote here. Here is a link that I would like for readers to see before I go on to post my response to Robert here.Louhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1076968.html>

In reply to Lou's response-antsemwilbegudfor » Robert_Burton_1621, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2015, at 16:53:43

> > > > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere. > > > >> > > > Bill82> > > > > > 1. Please be civil. How would you feel if someone referred to your speech as non sensical unrelated?> > > > > > 2. His objective may not (or may) be interaction and support. > > > > > > 3. If you can't make sense of someone's posts, it might not be worth your while to keep reading them.> > > > > > Bob> > > > Dr. Hsiung,> > > > 1. Bill82 did not refer to the content of any post as "non-sensical" or "unrelated" tout court. He stated that the relevant content was "seemingly" non-sensical or unrelated. In ordinary English, such a qualification implies that the writer openly accepts the possibility that the content *may not in fact be* nonsensical or unrelated. > > > > 2. There is signifiant ambiguity in any case as to whether the (qualified) attribution of nonsensicality was made with the intent directly to characterise the content of the relevant post or posts or whether it was made with the intent to express the *indirect* difficulties Bill82 has attested as having experienced in seeking to make sense of the relevant post or posts *given his lack of "mental stamina"* caused by his condition (for which he turns to this site for support). The first alternative characterises the comment as intending to apply primarily to the relevant post or posts; the second alternative applies primarily to Bill's *capacities* to construe the sense which is contained in the post or post. > > > > Your chastisment conflates, or omits to identify the existence of, these alternatives, without any apparent justification. > > > > 3. You ask how Bill82 should "feel" if x. You pose the question seemingly as if it were a definitive retort. But nothing about the question necessitates a single answer, certainly not one inevitably favourable to the assumption on which it is based. This be so even to the extent that the question clearly appeals to "feeling" as if "feeling" were both universal and invariable across persons, in effect some form of universal criterion of moral approbation or reprobation (are you an emotivist?), *and* heuristically more relevant than (for instance) "reason" in determining whether there are any *grounds* personally to object to, or be dissatisfied by, or be justly critical of, the statement that one's stated views are x or y or z. I can only speak for myself when I say that, if someone asserts that my opinion is nonsensical, and if objectively in point of reason it *is* nonsensical, I will thank him or her for pointing that fact out to me. I will not "feel" unvalued, or (to use an Oprahesque term) unvalidated, or ignored, or unjustly treated, if someone tells me in charity that I am wrong. > > > > 2. There is sufficient evidence of civility and consideration in the post that it astonishes me that it could possibly be the cause of any need to urge on the poster an exhortation to be "civil". I was so taken aback by your exhortation that I thought, and think, that an apology is warranted. > > > > 3. Given that *one* objective you consider open is the seeking of interaction and support, there is nothing illict in Bill's comment to the extent that it assumes the existence of this one (if among other) objectives. Nothing in Bill's comment purports to cover exhaustively every purpose, or all purposes, by which his interlocutor may have been actuated. > > > > 4. It may not be "worth [Bob's] while" to read posts which he finds seemingly nonsensical or in which his condition militates against inferring a satisfactory sense. This is, I think, without disrespect, a rather unfeeling way of putting the dilemma, particularly after Bill's affecting post. What do you have to say in light of the possibilities that members may *wish* to participate by reading the posts that are made here? May *wish* to keep up to date with threads to which they have contributed? May *wish* to visit the site daily so as to keep up-to-date? May *wish* to read putatively nonsensical posts which fall (arbitrarily) within a particular thread on a different topic because they might contain something related to the thread or which subsequent posts then make reference to? And what, finally, of the fact that some posts are, because of their prevalence, very hard to ignore given the way the threads are presented? > > > > 5. Is your advice in all such cases as particularised above that members either not read or devise some absurd means of averting their attention? If so, do you concede that this advice is vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum? Namely, that members should *leave" the site altogether? > > > > I am certainly considering doing so myself.> > > > 6. Please do feel assured that my attempt at a rational response to your reply to Bill82 is not intended to amount to "bullying". Please consider how you would feel if someone asserted that you were a "bully". Please also consider how you would feel if you were deliberately misprepresented as asserting that you stated that *someone*, i.e, a particular human being, does not merit consideration, when you in fact you had taken pains to state that certain *opinions* do not merit *reasonable* consideration if they be not based themselves in reason, even though they may merit *other* forms of consideration (e.g., compassionate attention). I have an instinct for fairness, and an aptitude for "questioning authority", even when I do not believe such authority is corrupted by an all-pervasive and programmatic anti-semitism. Please do not feel threatened by this. I can refer you to educational material on this point if you are interested and if you have the time to learn from it. It may assist you in expressing yourself more considerately and lucidly in the future. Please be civil and non-accusatory in any reply you may be minded to provide in public on the very site that you administer. Please remain mindful of the fact that *all* members of this site are vulnerable in various respects. Please try to respect opinions that are not congruent with your own. I know this is difficult - I can readily refer you to resources which might assist you in overcoming this difficulty. > > > > 7. We all of us can resort to the evasive tu quoque manouevre. > > > > Friends,> Many of you already know the disadvantage that I am under here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. A lot of those prohibitions involve keeping me from posting my own repudiation to anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen here as supportive and worse, that it being allowed to be seen that way here, it will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole. This is so even though he admits that harm could come to me by the nature that readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are validating the hate in the unsanctioned anti-Semitic propaganda here. But the harm could come to all Jews since the anti-Semitic propaganda in question being allowed to be seen as supportive here is defaming all Jews, not just me here as Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he can leave unsupportive statements un intervened because in his thinking that will be good for this community as a whole to do so. It is in his thinking that he allows hatred toward the Jews to be posted here with impunity. Think upon that if you are wondering about what Robert wrote here.> Here is a link that I would like for readers to see before I go on to post my response to Robert here.> Lou> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1076968.html> > > Friends, Let us stop here for a brief understanding of one of the issues here. This is the use of the preface to a statement by using "seemingly". Does that preface merit what is being prefaced to stand? Let us suppose a hypothetical member named Sue Purb posts her picture here. Which of the following would be acceptable to post here?A. I think Sue is uglyB. I believe Sue is uglyC. My mother says Sue is uglyD. The bible says that Sue is uglyE. It seems that Sue is uglyF. Sue could be uglyG. Sue became dark and loathsome due to her un beliefLou>

In reply to Lou's reply-ihndok » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2015, at 13:44:12

> > Hi, Lou. > > > > > The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum> > > > What is the mission of this forum?> > > > > > - Scott> > Scott,> You asked as to what the mission of this forum is.> The mission of this forum could be deduced by different readers as to what their knowledge is concerning what can be seen here. I am prevented from posting what I see as the mission here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. Those prohibitions prevent me from showing the history and development of psychiatric drugs and the relationship of psychiatry and mass-murder and support. They also prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which if I was not prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post such, it would be plainly visible what the mission of this forum is from my perspective.> Lou

Scott, Now that you know that there are prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung that prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, then since the mission of the forum includes that prohibition to me, a distortion could occur here as to how one perceives the mission here because only certain perspectives can be seen here. This can alter the perception of reality which can lead to a corruption of the truth. That corruption could end IMHHHHHO in the deaths of readers here by the nature that Mr Hsiung states that his mission for the forum is to exemplify the Golden Rule, which he uses a corrupt version that atheists use to taunt and mock Jews that use the Golden Rule. This corruption of the Golden Rule by him follows the allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive and worse that by it being allowed to be seen as supportive, that will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking. That could lead to Jews being victims of anti-Semitic violence as readers seeing from a psychiatrist that is mission is for support, and anti-Semitic propaganda could be seen as supportive here. The Golden Rule in the popular form has its written origin in the Hebrew scriptures. To corrupt the rule is to corrupt Judaism if one says that they are using the Golden Rule in a form that is a perverted form from the original Hebrew. This perversion could IMHHHHHHO result in the deaths of some readers here. I base this on the facts that the population here is vulnerable to suicide and murder thoughts due to taking mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor of which even the FDA says that these drugs can increase suicidal thinking in particular to young people. If I was not prohibited here by Mr. Hsiung in regards to Judaism, I think that lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be averted and those posting here to kill themselves and did so, could be alive today if they were allowed to hear from me. Mr. Hsiung claims that he is doing what will be good for this community as a whole by prohibiting me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. That is part of his mission here. Mr Hsiung claims that by him denying me equal protection of his rules, that it will be good for this community as a whole for him to do so, as he thinks. But is that part of The Golden Rule as Mr. Hsiung states is in his mission here? Or is it a corruption of the golden Rule. Let no man deceive you. For the Golden Rule can not be corrupted and still be called the Golden Rule, for the Torah had it written thousands of years ago in its form that stands today as the same as when it was written and can not be corrupted to mean something else by anyone. And as long as the anti-Semitic propaganda remains here to be seen as supportive and in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole, readers will not get the whole truth, for they can not hear from me from a Jewish perspective, which IMHHO corrupts support to mean indoctrination.Lou

In reply to Lou's reply to Scott-Ihndok, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2015, at 16:07:18

> > > Hi, Lou. > > > > > > > The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum> > > > > > What is the mission of this forum?> > > > > > > > > - Scott> > > > Scott,> > You asked as to what the mission of this forum is.> > The mission of this forum could be deduced by different readers as to what their knowledge is concerning what can be seen here. I am prevented from posting what I see as the mission here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. Those prohibitions prevent me from showing the history and development of psychiatric drugs and the relationship of psychiatry and mass-murder and support. They also prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which if I was not prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post such, it would be plainly visible what the mission of this forum is from my perspective.> > Lou> > Scott,> Now that you know that there are prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung that prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, then since the mission of the forum includes that prohibition to me, a distortion could occur here as to how one perceives the mission here because only certain perspectives can be seen here.

I think I understand your trepidations and motivations to question the civility and sociological ramifications of allowing an ancient post in the Faith forum to remain intact and without comment by the moderator of this forum.

Would you recognize antisemitism were it to appear in more recent posts? Are there any such posts?

Out of curiosity, what is Dr. Bob's reasons for not excising the posts that you are concerned with?

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott-Ihndok » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 29, 2015, at 7:41:04

> > > > Hi, Lou. > > > > > > > > > The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum> > > > > > > > What is the mission of this forum?> > > > > > > > > > > > - Scott> > > > > > Scott,> > > You asked as to what the mission of this forum is.> > > The mission of this forum could be deduced by different readers as to what their knowledge is concerning what can be seen here. I am prevented from posting what I see as the mission here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. Those prohibitions prevent me from showing the history and development of psychiatric drugs and the relationship of psychiatry and mass-murder and support. They also prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which if I was not prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post such, it would be plainly visible what the mission of this forum is from my perspective.> > > Lou> > > > Scott,> > Now that you know that there are prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung that prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, then since the mission of the forum includes that prohibition to me, a distortion could occur here as to how one perceives the mission here because only certain perspectives can be seen here.> > I think I understand your trepidations and motivations to question the civility and sociological ramifications of allowing an ancient post in the Faith forum to remain intact and without comment by the moderator of this forum. > > Would you recognize antisemitism were it to appear in more recent posts? Are there any such posts?> > Out of curiosity, what is Dr. Bob's reasons for not excising the posts that you are concerned with?> > > - Scott

Scott, Before I go into the intent shown here that can be seen of Mr. Hsiung's allowing statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to be seen as supportive, let us look at this post.Lou[ admin, 1066863 ]

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-crehytandeavhel » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 29, 2015, at 23:51:00

> > Would you recognize antisemitism were it to appear in more recent posts? Are there any such posts?> Scott, Let us look here at the following partial list of how anti-Semitism is created and developed in a community. This is nothing new, but old tactics that countries/states/communities/universities/schools ect use to arouse hatred toward the Jews and create and develop anti-Semitism in a community. To show the intent of community leaders as to creating and developing anti-Semitism, the following partial list is how it is done. When these things are present in a community, it could be deemed to be an anti-Semitic community. Then statements that are allowed to be seen as supportive here that put down /accuse Jews, could be deemed to be anti-Semitic statements and if allowed to be seen as supportive, then that could lead to the creation and development of anti-Semitism in a community.Louhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844279.html

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott-Ihndok » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 29, 2015, at 7:41:04

> > > > Hi, Lou. > > > > > > > > > The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum> > > > > > > > What is the mission of this forum?> > > > > > > > > > > > - Scott> > > > > > Scott,> > > You asked as to what the mission of this forum is.> > > The mission of this forum could be deduced by different readers as to what their knowledge is concerning what can be seen here. I am prevented from posting what I see as the mission here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. Those prohibitions prevent me from showing the history and development of psychiatric drugs and the relationship of psychiatry and mass-murder and support. They also prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which if I was not prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post such, it would be plainly visible what the mission of this forum is from my perspective.> > > Lou> > > > Scott,> > Now that you know that there are prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung that prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, then since the mission of the forum includes that prohibition to me, a distortion could occur here as to how one perceives the mission here because only certain perspectives can be seen here.> > I think I understand your trepidations and motivations to question the civility and sociological ramifications of allowing an ancient post in the Faith forum to remain intact and without comment by the moderator of this forum. > > Would you recognize antisemitism were it to appear in more recent posts? Are there any such posts?> > Out of curiosity, what is Dr. Bob's reasons for not excising the posts that you are concerned with?> > > - Scott

Scott, You asked about Mr. Hsiung's reasons for allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand to be seen as supportive. Mr. suing states that being supportive takes precedence and that if it is not civil to not post it and members are to be civil at all times. e further states tat if a statement stands, it is not against is rules. This brings up as to what a reasonable reader could think as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent is to allow anti-Semitism to be seen ere as supportive. Mr. Hsiung further states that he in his thinking is doing what will be good for this community as a whole, and further, that readers are to try to trust him at that because he uses fairness and the Golden Rule in his administration of this forum. Now let's go on...Lou

In reply to Lou's reply-the intent » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2015, at 17:00:42

> > > > > Hi, Lou. > > > > > > > > > > > The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum> > > > > > > > > > What is the mission of this forum?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Scott> > > > > > > > Scott,> > > > You asked as to what the mission of this forum is.> > > > The mission of this forum could be deduced by different readers as to what their knowledge is concerning what can be seen here. I am prevented from posting what I see as the mission here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. Those prohibitions prevent me from showing the history and development of psychiatric drugs and the relationship of psychiatry and mass-murder and support. They also prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which if I was not prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post such, it would be plainly visible what the mission of this forum is from my perspective.> > > > Lou> > > > > > Scott,> > > Now that you know that there are prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung that prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, then since the mission of the forum includes that prohibition to me, a distortion could occur here as to how one perceives the mission here because only certain perspectives can be seen here.> > > > I think I understand your trepidations and motivations to question the civility and sociological ramifications of allowing an ancient post in the Faith forum to remain intact and without comment by the moderator of this forum. > > > > Would you recognize antisemitism were it to appear in more recent posts? Are there any such posts?> > > > Out of curiosity, what is Dr. Bob's reasons for not excising the posts that you are concerned with?> > > > > > - Scott> > Scott,> You asked about Mr. Hsiung's reasons for allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand to be seen as supportive.> Mr. suing states that being supportive takes precedence and that if it is not civil to not post it and members are to be civil at all times. e further states tat if a statement stands, it is not against is rules.> This brings up as to what a reasonable reader could think as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent is to allow anti-Semitism to be seen ere as supportive. Mr. Hsiung further states that he in his thinking is doing what will be good for this community as a whole, and further, that readers are to try to trust him at that because he uses fairness and the Golden Rule in his administration of this forum.> Now let's go on...> Lou

Scott, Now Mr. Hsiung goes on to say that he could leave uncivil statments un intervened and that his intent by doing that is that by him allowing the unsupportive statement to be seen as supportive, then it will in his thinking be good for the community as a whole. This could be thought by readers to mean that anti-Semitic statements un sanctioned will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for the community as a whole. That type of thinking was used to advocate slavery. That type of thinking has been used to justify genocide. That type of thinking has been used to justify infanticide. That type of thinking has been used to justify segregation. That type of thinking is used here by Mr. Hsiung to justify in his own mind using discrimination in the un equal applying of his rules here in particular, but not limited to, statements that put down, accuse deride insult and disrespect Jews. And in his thinking that will be good for this community as a whole. Now a psychiatrist could know that people could be exposed to the risk of injury here by him allowing what could arouse hatred toward the Jews to be posted here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and lead Jewish readers to feel put down and that their faith is being disrespected by not only Mr. Hsiung , but those in concert with him here and his deputies of record that allowed the antisemitic statements to be seen here as supportive. His recent attempts to change what has already been done here does not erase the harm that could have already been inflicted upon any recipients of the anti-Semitic hatred being allowed to be seen as being good for this community as a whole as Mr. Hsiung has in his thinking. In fact, there could be a subset of Jews that could be even more offended by him now saying that he could leave anti-Semitic statements to be seen as supportive here, and to be seen as civil here, {so that it would be good for his community as a whole}. It is not in any question to me what is Mr. Hsiung's intent by doing that, for he openly states that he is allowing insults to Judaism to be seen as supportive here so that his community will somehow be "good" by him doing so as some readers could think by him using the European fascist ideology of what they called the {common good} to persecute the Jews and allow the community to use the Jews as an outlet for their sadism including mass-murder.Lou